WSPC05386 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'- '~,~ "J f"l6' ~u ~' .:l its use. After the Supreme Court decision, a compact commission was created by the two states and a compact was negotiated which became effective in 1945. The Caddoa reservoir is being operated under the direction of the Commission and there is no tension between the two states, or any of the interests in the states regarding the Arkansas River. This >Jould not have been possible vnthout the Arkansas River Com- __~..L peu";,,,. ~ater use problems between certain interests in Kansas and certain interests in Colorado developed on the Republican River at an early date. A Unite, States District Court rendered a d~cision on some of these problems which had been ,'rought before that Court. Such decisions, however, did not solve interstate prob- ',ems with respect to the use of the waters of the stream. Development of the water supplies of the Republican River was desired '" the states of Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska. This development could not take ~ce until the waters were apportioned among the three states. This was done by ,~ Republican River Compact which became effective in 1943. Since that time five 'l~S have been constructed and nine additional dams are authorized for constructio~, This compact had one feature which former compacts did not have, but "'luch subsequent compacts do have. I have indicated above that the consent of the ,jongress does not constitute approval by the United States of the provisions of the "ompact. However, the Republican River Compact did recognize the interest of the ;~ited States and, to a certain extent, its obligations. The North Platte River is covered by a Supreme Court decree. Before 1" e commencement of the Supreme Court suit, futile efforts were made over a period years to negotiate a compact on this river. I am confident that, had those ",':corts been successful, the remaining needed development on the North Platte River w0uld be proceeding under logical planning by the three states of Nebraska, Wyoming, ond Colorado, working with relevant federal agencies. A Supreme Court decision in 1922 fixed the status of the uses of the 'vaters of the Laramie River. Three decisions, including a clarifying one, have oeen rendered by the Supreme Court since that tiec. In spite of such decisions, current efforts are being made to resolve some intra-state water use problems in Colorado concerning the Laramie River, which may develop into efforts for a compact resulting in an amicable adjust8ent of a long-pending controversy. Water USe problems in the I<lissouri River basin are complicated and are apt to become more so as the various units of the Missouri River basin plan progres- sively go into operation. Some of the fundamental problems were settled by the authorizing legislation. However, it will be necessary to set up machinery to bring about a coordinated operation of the various units of the project which will perform various functions and serve several states. I understand that the officials of the states of the basin, recognizing this, are having certain studies made to determine the practicability of negotiating a compact among the states to carry out these purposes. A compact betITeen the states of Wyoming and South Dakota exists on the Cheyenne River and its principal tributary, the Belle Fourche River. Some of the units of the Missouri River Basin Project will be constructed and operated under the terms of this compact. Efforts have been made to negotiate a compact among the states of Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota over the uses of the waters of the Yellowstone River. It is understood that the terms of a compact have been essentially agreed upon by representatives of the states. In the meanti~e, at least one reservoir of -9-